Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 16.06.2016 11:25:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:17:54AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>
>> As for the flexibility:
>> We do code specifically for gpg, which happens to work for gpg2 also.
>> The patch doesn't add any gpg ui requirements that we don't require
>> elsewh
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:17:54AM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> As for the flexibility:
> We do code specifically for gpg, which happens to work for gpg2 also.
> The patch doesn't add any gpg ui requirements that we don't require
> elsewhere already.
> More flexibility requires a completely pl
Jeff King venit, vidit, dixit 15.06.2016 02:56:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Jeff King writes:
>>
>>> I'm still undecided on whether it is a better approach than making
>>> sure the stdout we got looks sane. In particular I'd worry that it
>>> would make
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 06:26:33PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> > > > bottom = signature->len;
> > > > - len = strbuf_read(signature, gpg.out, 1024);
> > > > + strbuf_read(signature, gpg.out, 1024);
> > > > + strbuf_read(&err, gpg.err, 0);
> > >
> > > H, isn't this aski
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 04:47:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
> > I'm still undecided on whether it is a better approach than making
> > sure the stdout we got looks sane. In particular I'd worry that it
> > would make things harder for somebody trying to plug in somethin
Jeff King writes:
> I'm still undecided on whether it is a better approach than making
> sure the stdout we got looks sane. In particular I'd worry that it
> would make things harder for somebody trying to plug in something
> gpg-like (e.g., if you wanted to do something exotic like call a
> prog
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 05:50:19PM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:13:54AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> > Michael J Gruber writes:
> >
> > > bottom = signature->len;
> > > - len = strbuf_read(signature, gpg.out, 1024);
> > > + strbuf_read(signature, gpg.out, 1024);
>
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:13:54AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael J Gruber writes:
>
> > bottom = signature->len;
> > - len = strbuf_read(signature, gpg.out, 1024);
> > + strbuf_read(signature, gpg.out, 1024);
> > + strbuf_read(&err, gpg.err, 0);
>
> H, isn't this asking f
Michael J Gruber writes:
> bottom = signature->len;
> - len = strbuf_read(signature, gpg.out, 1024);
> + strbuf_read(signature, gpg.out, 1024);
> + strbuf_read(&err, gpg.err, 0);
H, isn't this asking for a deadlock? When GPG spews more than
what would fit in a pipe buffer
When we create a signature, it may happen that gpg returns with
"success" but not with an actual detached signature on stdout.
Check for the correct signature creation status to catch these cases
better. Really, --status-fd parsing is the only way to check gpg status
reliably. We do the same for v
10 matches
Mail list logo
